The Rise of Stalin: Where does history
come from? Here are two possible interpretations of the
events which led to Stalin becoming supreme leader in
the USSR by 1929:
- Stalin was a dull man prepared to take on dull
jobs. In doing so, he was helped by many unimaginative
members of the Communist Party who owed their jobs
to him. Above all, his main rivals underestimated
him and made many basic errors.
- Stalin has been harshly treated by history over
this issue. Stalin gained support within the party
because he had ideas, good ideas which many Communists
supported (such as Socialism in one country). The
view that Stalin gained power because of the mistakes
of others has largely come from historians accepting
his opponents' interpretation of events.
Stage 1:
Was Stalin cruel and devious, and if so does that make
him slow and stupid? Work through sources 1-6. What
evidence is there to support the contention that,
- he was cruel and devious?
- he was slow and stupid?
Stage 2:
Why do we have to take care with the evidence? Look
at Sources 1-6 again. There are many aspects of this
evidence which historians need to use with care.
- What does Source 1 tell historians about Stalin's
methods?
- Read Source 2. Is there any indication that this
author is trying a little too hard to convinced us
that he can be trusted?
- Look at Source 3: from this evidence, is Stalin
cruel and stupid or clever and ruthless?
- Read Source 4 (both parts). What difference does
the extra material in 4B make to the impression of
Stalin created in 4A?
- Read Sources 5 and 6. Do they agree on any points?
Explain your answer.
Stage 3: Conclusion
"During the next ten years a story began to form in
my mind - the story of how Joseph Stalin, an Old Bolshevik
of plain appearance, average speaking ability, and moderate
intelligence, evolved into the greatest autocrat, and
in my estimation the greatest criminal, of all time."
The website opens with this extract from Source 2.
Having looked at this and other evidence, should we
be trying to answer the mysterious question of how the
bumbling Stalin became leader, or is that the wrong
question to ask?
Consider all of the evidence and then prepare an Email
to the author of the extract above. You are not disputing
Stalin's atrocious human rights record, but you would
like to challenge the view that he was dull and unintelligent.
Prepare your ideas, support them with evidence and then
mail them to bwalsh@ms.webfactory.co.uk.
Other History Online users will compare their ideas
with yours and you can get a discussion going. This
exercise challenges well-established historical assumptions
asking students,
- Why do we think Cromwell was harsh?
- Why do we think Haig was a butcher?
- Why do we think Stalin was stupid?
The aim of this investigation is to examine existing
interpretations,
- test the evidence on which they are based
- consider how reputations in history are made.
In the process students should develop useful insights
to serve them well in those examination essays.
Finally, the email talkboard activity will enable students
from all over the globe to come together through History
Online.
